Edmond (2006)

Pretty Good

Good start, but then it gets ruined

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

This is a brief review of "Edmond" and "Glengarry Glen Ross", two films written by David Mamet.The lesser of the two, "Edmond" revolves around a businessman (William H. Macy) who has grown tired of the stresses and pressures of modern life. Trapped in an existential rut, and finding no love, purpose or satisfaction at work or at home, he breaks up with his wife and sets off for a night on the town. Here he hopes to hire a prostitute, but things don't go as planned, and pretty soon he's being arrested for a violent murder. The film is remarkably brisk (79 minutes), Mamet obsessed with modern emasculation and violent resentment, but weak direction by Stuart Gordon undermines his screenplay's better qualities.Capitalism as a slow train to hell, "Glangarry Glen Ross" is merely an ensemble version of "Edmond". Here the businessmen are a group of real estate agents who struggle to cope with deadlines and targets. They're fired by their company and given a ruthless ultimatum: sell or you won't be rehired. Eventually the pressure of meeting targets proves too much and one salesman commits a shocking crime.Filled with meaty dialogue and lengthy monologues, "Glengarry" is elevated by several bombastic moments by actors Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alec Baldwin and Jack Lemmon. It's a joy to watch these actors chew scenery, even if the film ultimately amounts to a group of middle class, middle aged men, moaning about the drudgery of their 9 to 5 lives.7.5/10 - Worth one viewing.

Most writers wish more than anything that they could develop their own distinctive voice, like famed playwright David Mamet has done. The problem with people recognizing the way you say things, though, is that it makes it really damn obvious when you've got nothing to say. Edmond is an empty, meandering, quizzical and fairly self-involved bit of blather. If this script didn't have Mamet's name on it, it likely would never have been produced and certainly wouldn't have attracted such a talented cast.Based on a stage play, this movie follows the journey of upper middle class New Yorker Edmond (William H. Macy) as he decides to leave his wife and sets out across the city to get himself laid. He humorously haggles over price with several strippers and whores, bangs a pretty young waitress, gets beaten up by some streetside hustlers, beats the ass of a deceitful pimp, commits a senseless murder and alternately rages and pontificates about predestination, social graces and the racial and societal preoccupations of upper middle class New Yorkers.The first observation to make about this film is that Edmond and the waitress he picks up for a one night stand are the only characters to have actual names. Everyone else goes unnamed during the movie and is listed in the credits as "Matron", "B-Girl", "Whore", "Interrogator", etc. It's my experience that when characters in a story don't have real names, it's usually a sign of either lazy writing or affectation. Either way, it's a bad sign and indicates what you're watching or reading is excessively contrived. That's true of Edmond, where unreal people say and do unreal things. They're never living their lives, only playing parts and mouthing dialog that isn't nearly as clever as Mamet believes and isn't at all insightful or thought-provoking.When you look deeper into this movie, you discover that there's no reason for anything that happens in it. Why does Edmond leave his wife? Why is he bitter and frustrated? Why is he so cheap when it comes to paying for sex? Why does he commit murder? There's no explanation for any of it other than "just because". Now, Mamet may have been attempting to make the randomness of human behavior the point of his story. That purpose still wouldn't make it interesting or entertaining.One of the jumble of things this film throws against the wall is white racism. It's nothing more than William H. Macy and Joe Mantegna spouting off bigotry both malevolent and condescending, only to see Edmond wind up seeking salvation from the late-night services of a black Baptist congregation. Again, Mamet may have been trying to say something about the clueless racial pretensions of white folk, but that intent doesn't produce anything meaningful or revealing.If you've ever watched good Mamet before, it'll be easy to recognize this as bad Mamet. Edmond has the same rhythms, tone and verbal ticks and habits being applied to an idea that doesn't go anywhere because it has nowhere to go. It's a bit like listening to a great singer belt out an awful song. Imagine Celine Dion doing a rendition of some nonsense rap song about women's butt cheeks. It would only be enjoyable as parody or satire, which this movie clearly isn't trying or intended to be.Edmond is blessedly short at just over 80 minutes long. That's still 80+ minutes that would be better spent doing something besides watching this film.

David Mamet's play "Edmond" becomes on the hands of the "Re-Animator" director Stuart Gordon a strange portrayal about human degradation and the loss of everything, a man who lost everything and most important, his inner self into sex, crimes, lies and more; a man who went spiraling out of control believing this was the path he should be traveling by. So, if you're in a good mood don't go watch this film.Remember when Tom Cruise was walking on the NY streets looking for something after his wife tell him something disturbing to him in "Eyes Wide Shut"? Well, William H. Macy playing Edmond does almost the same except this time his disenchanted character leaves his wife and his house, he doesn't love her anymore and he wants something new, something exciting in his life. Edmond's "guides" in this rotten and sickening world of "pleasures" and deceive are a fortune teller (Frances Bay); a man he met at a bar (Joe Mantegna); a young waitress (Julia Stiles); a stripper (Ling Bai); a prostitute (Mena Suvari); a prisoner (Bookem Woodbine); and plenty of others and the number 115 (?). And he keeps walking the streets looking for something, for someone who can listen to him, someone who can have sex with him, but he gets robbed, commits murders AND doesn't realize he had everything he needed and now he's going for his ruin, his moral and physical destruction; to him forces or fate control everything in everyone's lives, it's not in our hands to built our path through life, it's bigger than us. The film isn't fair with us by showing Edmond became the way he did; it isn't fair also because he barely realizes that his life was full of good things, it simply throws to us that he hated how the world was like, hated his wife and all. The guy snapped! Thankfully, the movie makes sense without showing the difference of what Edmond was and what Edmond becomes but we can notice his failure during his doomed journey. The story is quite good but there are some weak points to be found. The most serious moment of the film became the most laughable when Edmond killed someone, his lowest point, and I laughed a lot, don't know why exactly. Perhaps the plot was going way absurd or the way the scene was edited, something happened to me during this part; the plot twists to some bizarre things that to some might look ridiculous; another thing that bothers concerns about Edmond's racist attacks, it goes way too much, less could work effectively, and is something that shouldn't be here if the movie seems to demand from us that we like this guy (and we do, no matter what because William H. Macy is always likable in any film he makes). But, my guess is that Mamet's text works best when he also directs (notable exception is "Glengarry Glen Ross" directed by James Foley). Positive aspects of this film besides the story: Macy is amazing (as always) in the title role. He brings desperation and real drama to this role, we feel pity of him at points until we realize this guy went too far. Supporting cast goes well and I wish we could have more of Joe Mantegna, the most friendly character to Edmond during his entrance to hell. Final questions: Edmond really had to pass through all of this? How much do we control in life? To be complete and to be happy is easy? If you like difficult questions that look simple but most of the time are not answered, and if you enjoy characters who go downhill through life time and time again, go watch "Edmond" right away. 9/10

It's one man's meandering trek through his own modern empty self, filled with alienation, insecurity, and existential uncertainty. As cliché as it sounds, it's a man finding himself. That is, getting a surer grasp on himself and the world he's in; growing and maturing. It's a very good film, but I think it runs the risk of being misunderstood, and I think that more than a few will be offended.The script is the star, but Macy is very good too. I think people like to dislike Pidgeon because she's in so many of Mamet's works, but she earns her place on the screen, here. All the supporting cast do nicely (even Denise Richards). Look out for Norm!See it with someone you'll talk with for a while afterward.